Acee, Please, see in line.
Igor > > > >IB>> Here are my questions: > > > >1. If OSPF WG has avoided making OSPF a generalized transport, why then we > >need opaque LSAs (which do nothing but expose OSPF transport to various > >applications and hence make the transport generalized :-)) ? > > > > > The fact that opaque LSAs are supported doesn't preclude us from being > judicious > about what we carry in them. Let me make an analogy - the trunk of your > BMW is > a general purpose storage area - however, you'd be wise not to use it > for manure. IB>> As Dimitri and other people pointed out there is plenty of proposed solutions that use OSPF (opaque LSAs) based discovery. I can add to this heap the PCE capabilities discovery developped within the PCE WG. Responding to your analogy I'd say that there is nothing wrong about transporting manure in the BMW trunk if: a) you don't have another car available; b) transporting manure is beneficial/profitable; c) manure is wisely packed > > >2. Why is it OK to use OSPF for TE purposes but not for L1VPN purposes? > > > > > I just happen to have an answer to this question :^) > > I do think TE is a far different application than VPN. For one thing, I > view the > TE tunnels as part of the intra-domain topology. Accepting this premise, > TE tunnels > themselves are part of the same control plane as the IGP. Additionally, it > is more likely that the volume of TE information is bounded by the size > of the routing domain. Conversely, VPNs represent the services provided > external > to the routing domain of the IGP and the amount of VPN information is > not at all > bounded by the routing domain. IB>> I have already answered to this. In the context of the L1VPNs only PEs are the users of the TE info, because only them who perform path computation, and the only purpose of TE info distribution is to enable the path computation. Likewise PEs are the only users of the L1VPN information. So I don't see any conceptual difference between L1VPN and TE applications in this respect. Furthermore, the information passed in the L1VPN opaque LSAs is PE-CE port information and, therefore, is bound to the number of CE-PE links of the Provider domain. > > >3. Would you agree that there could be networks (specifically, L1 networks) > >and applications that do not use BGP at all and have no plans to use it in > >foreseeable future which yet could benefit from L1VPN services? Nobody said > >after all that BGP is a mandatory part of any control plane in any network > >layer > > > > > I agree that there are optical or other L1 networks that have their own > control > plane. I just don't see why one would want to offer VPNs on top of these > without an intervening L3 network. IB>> I think you are confused with the "VPN" part in L1VPN. Acoording to the ITU-T definition L1VPN is a L1 service and hence is concerned with lambdas, timeslots, etc. and have noting to do with (IP) packets. Igor > > Thanks, > Acee > > > >Thanks, > >Igor > > > > > > > >>>>If there are more discussion points that I have dropped, please feel > >>>>free to raise them as well. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>I guess the lack of response speaks volumes. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Thanks, > >>>>Adrian > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>BTW, I really don't like the "dark smoky-room" approach being taken > >>>here. If a WG participant/AD/etc. has an issue, then they should > >>>raise it themselves and not ask the WG chair to do it for them. If > >>>they don't care enough to raise it themselves, then IMO we, the WG, > >>>shouldn't waste our time on it! > >>> > >>> > >>Better that Adrian solicted input from the OSPF WG than have you wait > >>for this to be > >>rejected by the OSPF WG at a later IETF. Your L1VPN solution hasn't been > >>presented to OSPF WG or even posted to the OSPF WG list. Lest you make the > >>same mistake twice, I suggest you socialize the IDR WG (where this > >>application > >>belongs) early on in the process. > >> > >>Acee > >> > >> > >> > >>>Lou > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>L1vpn mailing list > >>L1vpn@lists.ietf.org > >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ L1vpn mailing list L1vpn@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn
